Posted on 03/18/2014 1:37:04 PM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
Editor's note: Julian Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. He is the author of "Jimmy Carter" and "Governing America."
(CNN) -- ...The weaknesses of both men—Cruz in terms of his style and Paul in terms of his rhetoric—point out how desperate the GOP is to find someone who can build a broad coalition, something that is essential for a presidential victory, particularly when Republicans will likely be facing a formidable candidate.
The problems of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie have been a huge blow to the party, and there are not many alternatives at this point who are willing to run to replace a figure who, in terms of style of governance and rhetoric, would have a better chance of appealing to voters beyond the base. This is the reason former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush is getting so much buzz, as potentially the only other person who can fill this void.
If Republicans can't find some alternative and the primaries revolve around the tension between Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, Democrats will be in excellent position to retain the White House in 2016.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
No. But thanks for playing.
And yes, I’ve read the relavent articles and seen how he’s voted.
I'm not going to argue it with you and don't want the management to ban me, but I suspect the demonrats will bring it up and hang that charge on the party of Nixon.
Good luck with that.
Indeed Paul is pro-amnesty and you shouldn’t inaccurately post otherwise here.
Here’s just one quote:
“Are you willing to try to bring the 11 million people who are here, bring them out of the shadows, give them an existence, try to be more humane, and try to get a better situation for them? That could happen tomorrow,” Paul said on ABC’s “This Week.”
“The problem is, is the sticking point going to be we have to have immediate voting privileges for those who came here illegally,” Paul added. “If the Democrats are willing to come halfway, I think we can pass some meaningful reform.”
http://patdollard.com/2014/01/rand-paul-backs-amnesty-if-illegals-cant-vote-immediately/
I love it when the Libtards start to care about who we nominate for Presdient. :-)
exactly, the left said that Reagan would be the easiest to beat too :)
That must have been quite a grade school that taught you that “under the law in effect between 1952 and 1986 — Cruz was born in 1970 — someone must have a citizen parent who resided in the United States for at least 10 years, including five after the age of 14, in order to be considered a natural-born citizen. Cruz’s mother, Eleanor Darragh, was born in Delaware, lived most of her life in the United States, and gave birth to little Rafael Edward Cruz in her 30s.”
Not hard to understand at all. So simple even a fifth or sixth grader can understand it.
It's all the exceptions people come up with that are hard to understand, like your example as written in your post, for instance.
If you disagree with the Cato institute and think that Senator Cruz is not qualified to be President, then you should go to this thread to argue it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3060736/posts
How did he vote on the immigration bill? Agains it you say.... Hhmmm, that’s not very “amnesty” like.
How about his 11mil out of the shadows comment there? Was it “amnesty” with full citizenship like Reagan did? No? They’d go to the back of the immigration line and lose all of their current benefits? Well shoot, that’s not much of an “amnesty” either...
Wasn’t there something about finishing the border wall and making any reforms contigent upon an annual Congressional panel afirming the border being “secured”?
Well darn, that ain’t very “amnesty”/pro-illegal immigrant either.
So maybe it’s YOU doing the lying here...
Who’s your favorite for POTUS? Christie or Jeb?
Amnesty has nothing to do with finishing a border wall. Making them eligible for citizenship, albeit a tad delayed, is amnesty.
And of course I’m not for Jeb or Christie, who are two more pro-amnesty types.
Cruz is probably the best we have.
If this clown thinks that Jeb Bush is going to rally the Repubican base, he's got another guess coming.
It was in Rand’s amendment to the Senate immigration bill.
If you don’t even know that much, your opinion is worthless.
I know what was in Rand’s amendment and I stand by my statement: securing the border has nothing to do with amnesty. Sure, he put in a condition that the Senate wouldn’t go for, but again, he is for citizenship for illegals, which is flat-out amnesty.
If your ship is sinking, plugging the hole has nothing to do with keeping afloat.
Care to revise your statement? Or stick with your flawed logic along with your lack of facts?
He is for giving citizenship to illegals—how much more plainly can it put it for you.
There’s nothing to revise and my logic isn’t flawed. my original post in response to your false post offered all the facts needed: a direct quote from Paul.
Oh, and I’m done with your inaccuracies, insults and false accusations—I won’t respond further to you on this thread.
Good... The less agitprop you folks spread the better a chance the truth has to sit unmolested.
If Paul was “for” amnesty as you say, how did he vote on the immigration bill?
Kinda makes you the liar here.
Okie dokie.
We live in a time where marriage is now whatever you want it to be, an illegal alien isn't illegal nor alien, just undocumented, cold weather is man caused global cooling, hot weather is man caused global warming, unless it's actually human caused climate change, and by golly anyone who disagrees with that irrefutable fact should be jailed!
So, sure, up is down and down is up and as long as you're in love with a candidate, or even just full of infatuation, the actual words and meanings are whatever you want them to be!
As I said earlier, I'm not going to argue with you and I have no intention of being banned. I merely told you what I learned in public school and doubt that I am alone.
So, do whatever you please. Ignore the warnings, but consider this:
When you see loyal people who have been here at FR from the beginning, who have fought, celebrated and commiserated with you in every battle get banned or ask to be removed over Ted Cruz's eligibility, but otherwise love the guy and supported his candidacy for the Senate, it is a hint of things to come on the larger stage and perhaps you might reconsider your choice.
The last word is yours...
That was a Cato definition, I even gave you the source and the thread where it is being discussed.
“under the law in effect between 1952 and 1986 — Cruz was born in 1970 — someone must have a citizen parent who resided in the United States for at least 10 years, including five after the age of 14, in order to be considered a natural-born citizen. Cruz’s mother, Eleanor Darragh, was born in Delaware, lived most of her life in the United States, and gave birth to little Rafael Edward Cruz in her 30s.”
You made a very long post, but didn’t say anything that would back up your claims, nothing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.